Shiv Kumar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has moved the present petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to challenge the proceedings of the confiscation of a vehicle bearing registration No. MP-22 T-4221.

The facts of the case, in short are that, on 17.6.2012 a vehicle was caught by the police personnel of Police Station, Kewlari relating to the illegal transportation of wood and therefore, the applicant was arrested. A criminal case was registered under Sections 5, 16 & 17 of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman Adhiniyam (hereinafter it would be referred as ''the Adhiniyam'') and Section 41 of the Forest Act and also the confiscation proceedings were initiated.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is decided by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Premdas Vs. State of M.P. and Others, whereby it was directed that till the disposal of the trial, no confiscation proceedings may be prosecuted and therefore, an application was moved by the applicant before the confiscation officer to stay the proceedings and to return his vehicle, but the officer concerned did not pass any order on the application. Hence, it is prayed that the confiscation proceedings may be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case.

On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Premdas Bairagi (Supra) was dependent upon the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and Others Vs. Madhukar Rao, , which deals with the Provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, in which there was no provision of confiscation proceeding separately. The Hon''ble Apex Court did not have any reason to consider the provisions of the Forest Act and the Adhiniyam relating to the confiscation therefore, the dictum laid by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Madhukar Rao (supra) cannot be applied for the confiscation provisions of other laws. According to the Provisions of Sections 451-457 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is empowered to pass an order either interim or final for the disposal of the property placed before him alongwith the charge sheet. According to the Provision of Sections 15, 15A, 15B, 15C and 15D of the Adhiniyam and analogous Provision of the Forest Act, the powers of the trial Court are seized, if the confiscation proceeding is initiated and therefore, the confiscation proceeding cannot be stayed till the disposal of the case because, both the proceedings are parallel and of different nature.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent from the Provisions of Sections 15, 15A, 15B, 15C and 15D of the Adhiniyam and analogous provisions of the Forest Act that the legislature has enacted the parallel proceedings and if the information of the confiscation proceeding is given to the concerned judicial Magistrate then, he has no authority to pass any interim or final order relating to the disposal of the property seized. There was no such parallel proceeding enacted in the Wild Life (Protection) Act and therefore, the Hon''ble Apex Court did not have an opportunity to consider the Provisions of confiscation in the Forest Act as well as Adhiniyam. Hence, the dictum laid in the case of Madhukar Rao (supra) cannot be applied in the present case.

When a parallel proceeding is directed for the confiscation and the Magistrate is deprived of to pass any order relating to the Sections 451-457 of Cr.P.C., he has no concerned about the property seized. There is a provision of enquiry during confiscation proceedings and its appeal may be filed before the concerned authority and thereafter, a revision before the Sessions Court. When a parallel provision of confiscation is enacted then, the intention of legislature cannot be defeated and the Court is required to interpret the statue, but not to defeat any provision, if passed by the legislature. When the proceedings of confiscation is enacted, which is parallel to the proceeding of the trial then, proceedings of confiscation are independent and they are not dependent upon the trial. For the confiscation proceeding, the opposite party is required to submit the reply and objections, whereas in the trial, there is a privilege to the accused to say in his favour and he is not expected to say anything on oath. Under such circumstances, the result of the trial does not affect the disposal of the property. The seizure of the property is nothing, but an element of evidence, which is required to be produced before the trial Court and therefore, where the provision of confiscation proceedings are not declared ultra-virus by any of the competent Court therefore, those provisions cannot be defeated.

The order passed in the case of Premdas (supra) appears to be an order passed in a particular case, no specific law has been laid in that case therefore, it cannot be considered as a precedent. Therefore, no absolute right is created in favour of the applicant that he could move an application of stay relating to the confiscation proceedings.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the trial as well as confiscation proceedings may be prosecuted simultaneously and therefore, the confiscation authority was not required to stay its proceeding till the disposal of the trial.

Consequently, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Shiv Kumar cannot be accepted because it is of no basis and therefore, it is hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the confiscation authority for information.